Find research datasets worth reusing
Search datasets from major research repositories and use ShareScore to quickly assess how well each record supports discovery, access, and reuse.
93
datasets available to search
ShareScore release 0.9.0
Dataset results
93 results for “peer review”
Dataset for the paper submitted for peer-review with the title "Quantifying heterotrophic bacteria parameters and dissolved organic carbon biodegradability through oxygen data assimilation in a river water quality model"
<p>The proposed dataset is related to the following article submitted for peer review:</p> <p>Hasanyar, M., Flipo, N., Romary, T., Wang, S. (2023), Quantifying heterotrophic bacteria parameters and dissolved organic carbon biodegradability through oxygen data assimilation in a river water quality model, UNDER PEER-REVIEW</p> <p>It consists of command files for the prose-pa0.74 software available here: https://gitlab.com/prose-pa/prose-pa </p> <p>To run the model :</p> <p>1. Compile prose-pa0.74</p> <p>2. Copy the executable in the current directory</p> <p>3. In a terminal launch</p> <p>> ./prose-pa0.74 simulation.COMM test.log</p> <p>The “simulation.COMM” holds the settings for the ProSe-PA simulation related to the paper mentioned in the front head of the current file. </p> <p>The information on different parameters of “simulation.COMM” are included in “bathymetrie”, “Cmds”, “Inflows”, “layers”, “meteo”, “o2_obs”, “param_bio”, “Reaches” and “Singularities” folders.</p> <p>The “bathymetrie” folder holds the geometric information of several cross-sections along the river. </p> <p>The Cmds folder holds the “simulation.COMM” file. </p> <p>The “Inflows” folder the information about the boundary condition inflows to the river such as discharge, concentration of organic carbon, etc.</p> <p>The layer folder holds data of the initial conditions of the model (Table 2 in the article).</p> <p>The “meteo” folder holds the meteorological information.</p> <p>The “o2_obs” folder holds the observed oxygen data needed to do data assimilation. </p> <p>The “param_bio” folder holds information on the physiology of bacteria, phytoplankton, and other model species.</p> <p>The “Reaches” folder holds information about river reaches and their manning coefficient. </p> <p>The “param_range” file holds the variation range of model parameters considered in data assimilation together with their perturbation percentage.</p> <p>The output files are written in $HOME/Outputs folder. It is possible to change it directly in simulation.COMM, last entry “Output_folder”.</p>
"MiRoR13-P1- A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals"
<p>This dataset is related to the publication "A scoping review on the roles and tasks of peer reviewers in the manuscript review process in biomedical journals". All additional data can be found under 'Additional files' in the publication</p>
Data archive for the peer-reviewed journal article "Detailed characterization of the CAPS single scattering albedo monitor (CAPS PMssa) as a field-deployable instrument for measuring aerosol light absorption with the extinction-minus-scattering method"
<p>Data archive accompanying the peer-reviewed journal article "Detailed characterization of the CAPS single scattering albedo monitor (CAPS PMssa) as a field-deployable instrument for measuring aerosol light absorption with the extinction-minus-scattering method". In 2020 this article was accepted for publication in the journal <em>Atmospheric Measurement Techniques</em>. Data are uploaded in the form of ascii text files, Igor Pro experiment files (.pxp), and Jupyter notebook files. In addition, a Jupyter notebook file is included containing an implementation of the error model used in the paper.</p>
Knowledge Freedom in computational science: a two stage peer-review process with KF Eligibility Access Review
<p>What is explained below is the <em>peer review process</em> applied by <em>Notes on Transdisciplinar</em><em>y Modelling for Environment </em>(NTMe). Authors and readers are encouraged to understand not only the process, but also the rationale behind the process, which is closely connected with the peculiar challenges faced by the scientific problems (computational-science modelling under uncertainty, in broad and heterogeneous contexts) in the scope of the journal. </p> <p> </p> <p><span class="math-tex">\(\mathsf{\Large\text{The rationale behind the peer-review process}}\)</span></p> <p><strong>Computational research problems for more than one discipline. </strong>Research specific to a particular disciplinary domain is typically authored, and then studied, by experts in that domain. Several conventions, assumptions, fundamental protocols and methodology practices, are shared by domain experts as a common ground. Given that proficiency in these aspects is a precondition for domain experts, this kind of knowledge is often implicit, and not well communicated within domain-specific literature. "Typical" data preprocessing, model settings, quality-assessment assumptions (and their "default" simplifications and shortcuts), in this literature are often minimally reported or omitted, because the domain-specific community of researchers and practitioners knows them so well that they may resemble a sort of acquired conditioned response. However, when in a wider research more than one disciplinary domain is connected among each other, then implicit unexpressed knowledge may lead to ambiguity, misuse of results, and avoidable errors - sometimes challengly difficult to detect. The more and more diverse the domains, the higher this risk might be.</p> <p><strong>Useful cross-domain building blocks. </strong>"Transdisciplinary" research may risk being misinterpreted as just the final summary list of results grabbed by autonomous disciplinary silos run in parallel. However, a poor ability to communicate computational methods and data - and their limitations - between multiple disciplinary domains would jeopardise the collective (cross-domain) ability to distill truly integrated computational science. Computational science for transdisciplinary problems requires a pragmatic, engineered, but reasonably simple and modular approach to break and connect disciplinary silos - when appropriate for the problems investigated. Publishing <em>useful</em> cross-domain building blocks of this approach is the aim of the peer-review process in NTMe.</p> <p><strong>Connecting disciplines, space and time scales under uncertainty: the need for a shared semantics. </strong>Wide-scale transdisciplinary modelling (WSTM) relies on methods proper to computational science for connecting multiple scientific disciplines, and shedding light on broad, complex problems. Several of the most pressing problems we face as a human society are only partially known in their chain of consequences, and hopelessly difficult to address by a single discipline and a narrow perspective. Some of these problems capture the specific interest by particularly exposed regions, but their mechanism is more general, with essential knowledge often lying in other spatial areas - or even other time periods - hence calling for a wider perspective. Multiple spatial and temporal scales, with dissimilar data resolution, are frequent in WSTM problems, since they are often dictated by the complexity of reality and the available data. A wide-scale extent typically implies uneven quality and availability of data, and many sources of uncertainty - which increases when assumptions, methods and semantics by different disciplines or research institutions do not easily merge. A truly transdisciplinary communication of this essential semantics requires the <em>freedom </em>to communicate scientific knowledge, accurately and transparently, between disciplinary and corporate barriers.</p> <p><strong>Real knowledge sharing in computational science. </strong>As a consequence, wide-scale transdisciplinary modelling demands a focus on reproducible research and real scientific knowledge freedom. Data and software freedom are essential aspects of knowledge freedom in computational science. Therefore, ideally published articles should also provide the readers with the data and source code of the described mathematical modelling. To maximise transparency, replicability, reproducibility and reusability, published data should be made available as open data while source code should be made available as free software. Communicating semantics even to non-experts in a given domain requires that mathematical assumptions, otherwise obvious within a specific discipline, are duly annotated in a portable and concise way. Accordingly, brief but semantically clear documentation of data, methods and software is a key precondition. Here, a two-stage peer review process is described in which scientific knowledge freedom is considered with a dedicated Eligibility Access Review. This new peer review process is applied by <em>Notes on Transdisciplinary Modelling for Environment</em> with a focus on WSTM for environment.</p> <p> </p> <p><span class="math-tex">\(\mathsf{\Large\text{The peer-review process}}\)</span></p> <p><strong>A two-stage peer review process to avoid single-use disposable computational science. </strong>The two-stage peer review process requires discussion papers to be published so as to receive feedback from the scientific community before their possible finalisation. Initial manuscript submission is subject to the soundness review outlined above, also ensuring eligibility criteria to be fulfilled so as to support scientific knowledge freedom. Although this concept is multifaceted, some few dimensions might be emphasised which broadly apply in computational science and engineering (CSE). Among the many possible eligibility criteria in CSE, it should be highlighted at least the need for: </p> <ul> <li>free software to have been published so as for it to be persistently available;</li> <li>appropriate licensing and source code review to have been done (portable modularisation, with semantics of mathematical data-transformation methods clearly annotated);</li> <li>free data to have been published so as for it to be persistently available (with semantics of quantities clearly annotated);</li> <li>a minimal share of free-access core references to be selected in order for scientists and research organisations not to be discriminated on the basis of their funding availability, when they try to access the core literature cited in the manuscript.</li> </ul> <p>Before acceptance for discussion, a manuscript (and its potential data, parameters and software) may be revised, without exposing to the public immature versions, until it becomes able to fulfil the eligibility criteria. These iterations between author(s) and editors/reviewers remain confidential, and a potential manuscript rejection does not preclude resubmission. Acceptance of the manuscript to the discussion stage is followed by the permanent publication of the accepted version. This does not preclude, and actually encourages, further revised versions to be resubmitted. Any new revision is subject to eligibility access review, which takes into account the submission history of the manuscript and the already accepted public older versions.</p> <p><strong>Not a static publication. </strong>The discussion stage of the peer review process allows short comments to be submitted by referees and the scientific community, while authors are encouraged to interact with pending comments by providing their responses. During this stage, the paper accepted for discussion is already citable. Depending on the specific goals of each research problem, the discussion may remain open for a short time interval, or instead for a noticeably longer period of time (even indefinitely, if appropriate: for example, whenever authors do consider publishing cumulative milestone versions as important). There is not an a-priori limit to the duration of this first stage, and to the number of intermediate public revisions (which are optional), for a paper accepted for discussion. The second stage of peer review concludes the discussion stage with the submission of a revised manuscript, with final review and corrections. Fulfilment of the eligibility criteria is required over all the publication stages.<br> The published materials might be updated from time to time (at the authors' discretion), and - after peer-reviewing the changes - published so that the evolution is clear and available to others. Although preferred and encouraged in the discussion stage, updates are possible even after the final stage. Revisions offering a noticeably different content, compared with the previous versions, might sometime be recommended by editors/reviewers as deserving the status of a new publication - not to confuse the readers. This implies the full two-stage review process has to be applied to the new publication (as an independent publication), while the previous accepted publication is considered as the final permanent version. Recalling an analogy with the typical evolution of free-software, a software package is frequently subject to future improvements and corresponding new versions. If a new version is too different from the original package, it may become a new independent package. </p> <p><strong>Scientific opinions, perspectives, and overviews.</strong> Manuscripts focusing on computational science methods, data, parameters, and software are expected to contribute practical components of scientific knowledge which can be adapted, modified, or generally integrated within the future body of knowledge - potentially in unexpected ways. Therefore, the aforementioned two-stage review is, overall, meant to ease the future invention of derivative works. On the other hand, manuscripts offering expert opinions on these topics do not contribute "practical" components to be directly modified. Instead, they contribute organised ideas to support the evolution of scientific knowledge. Therefore, the peer review process for this typology of manuscripts focuses on:</p> <ul> <li>the broad understandability and potential interest of the expert opinions, and</li> <li>the factual correctness of the objective elements included in the opinion (with adequate bibliographic, tabular, visual support where appropriate). </li> </ul> <p><strong>Preregistration, protocols and methods. </strong>NTMe accepts a third typology of manuscripts, focusing on anticipated results (hence not yet computed) which are expected following a modelling procedure to transform input data and parameters into the desired output. As data and software are only anticipated in this typology of manuscripts, the peer-review process focuses on:</p> <ul> <li>the broad understandability and potential interest of the proposed protocol or methodology,</li> <li>the correctness and clarity of the mathematical formulation of the proposed computational-modelling steps (data-transformation modules),</li> <li>the discussion of anticipated results, pitfalls, sources of uncertainty and their proper management, bifurcations of the methodology depending on the potential variants that a user may desire to apply (depending on available data and their quality, and on the desired specialisation of the proposed general method), and</li> <li>the adequacy of bibliographic, tabular, visual supports where appropriate. </li> </ul> <p><strong>Abstract, and plain language summary. </strong>Each article includes a technical abstract. Although the topics of published content might deal with domain-specific aspects of computational/environmental science, their focused analysis is expected to support wider research in a transdisciplinary context. Therefore, the abstract is expected to be accessible beyond the domain-specific research community. Each article, either in the discussion or in the final stage, in addition to a technical abstract needs a <em>plain language summary</em> so that non-experts and readers with a basic scientific and technical literacy can understand the main contributions of the article. The aim of the plain language summary is to support educational dissemination. The summary is not a simpler abstract, and typically offers a longer, more comprehensive description. It is realised with an editorial support to authors, so as to respect a general structure (unless otherwise agreed):</p> <ul> <li>first, the general context of the work is presented (the general topics in which the work is situated);</li> <li>second, the general open questions are introduced to which the work aims to contribute;</li> <li>third, the specific way is described in which the work contributes to progress on the general open questions;</li> <li>fourth, the implications, new opportunities or suggested lines of research, and potential limitations and unaswered questions are summarised.</li> </ul> <p><strong>Constructive peer review.</strong> The ultimate aim of the peer review process is to support authors, and future readers, in sharing useful, durable, and understandable notes of transdisciplinary knowledge. Given the very nature of the topics in NTMe, the need for a cogent peer review on a multiplicity of expertise fields is essential. Rarely a single reviewer is able to cover all the aspects of transdiciplinary computational science. Even so, different opinions by different reviewers may emerge on specific points. Therefore, a <em>constructive </em>approach is promoted during each step of the peer review process, so that authors are guided to understand the peer review, and a compendium of recommandations may be presented in a consistent way.</p> <p> </p> <p><sup>© 2012-2020 Daniele de Rigo. This work is licensed under a </sup><a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/legalcode"><sup>Creative Commons Attribution No Derivatives 4.0 International</sup></a><sup> license. Please, cite as<br> de Rigo, D., 2012. </sup><strong><sup>Knowledge Freedom in computational science: a two stage peer-review process with KF eligibility access review</sup></strong><sup>. </sup><em><sup>Zenodo, </sup></em><sup>CERN. </sup><a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7578"><sup>https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7578</sup></a><sup> </sup></p> <p> </p>
PARSEC D(DO)MP. Project tracksheets: scholarly publications, non peer-reviewed digital outputs, dataset log, and software log.
<p>This project outcome is allied to the Data and Digital Output Management Plan for the project (Stall et al. 2023). This resource contains templates for others to use when tracking their project outcomes and usages, accompanied by filled worksheets for the PARSEC project up until the date of version 2 (30 December 2023).</p> <p>The material provided is available as examplars from the PARSEC project and for use by others (excel templates) for the following categories:</p> <ol> <li>Scholarly Publications </li> <li>Non Peer-Reviewed Digital Outputs (to include Datasets, Software, Conferences, Posters, Presentations, Training Materials, Workshop Materials, etc.)</li> <li>Datasets - working log of datasets reviewed for use by the project </li> <li>Software - working log for software reviewed by the project (to include Models, Notebooks, Workflow, etc.)</li> </ol> <p>V2 contains an update for non peer-reviewed digital outputs (2a) containing new and discovered outputs.</p> <p>Stall, Shelley, Specht, Alison, Corrêa, Pedro Luiz Pizzigatti, David, Romain, Edmunds, Rorie, Mabile, Laurence, Machicao, Jeaneth, Miyairi, Nobuko, Murayama, Yasuhiro, O'Brien, Margaret, Wyborn, Lesley, & Vellenich, Danton Ferreira. (2023). PARSEC Data and Digital Output Management Plan and Workbook. Zenodo. https://doi.org/<a href="https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3891426">10.5281/zenodo.3891426</a>.</p>
Data archive for the peer-reviewed journal article "Online measurements during simulated atmospheric aging track the strongly increasing oxidative potential of complex combustion aerosols relative to their primary emissions"
<p>This data archive accompanies the article "Online measurements during simulated atmospheric aging track the strongly increasing oxidative potential of complex combustion aerosols relative to their primary emissions", which was accepted in November 2024 in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Technology Letters. The data archive contains the processed OP_DTT, PM loading, oxidant level, and elemental ratio measurements presented in this journal article. </p>
data for the paper "Role of Vertical Mixing in the Upper Ocean in the Seasonal Variation of Arctic Amplification" in 2nd round peer review
<p>Here are all data for the paper "Role of Vertical Mixing in the Upper Ocean in the Seasonal Variation of Arctic Amplification", which is still during its peer review period. </p>
Republication package for: "Publishing while female: Are women held to higher standards? Evidence from peer review"
<p>Replication package to reproduce all tables and figures in the paper "Publishing while female: Are women held to higher standards? Evidence from peer review"</p>
Peer review surveys for ASAPbio/HHMI/Wellcome Meeting #bioPeerReview
<p>The following information is adapted from <a href="http://asapbio.org/peer-review/surveys">asapbio.org/peer-review/surveys</a> and <a href="http://asapbio.org/peer-review/summary">asapbio.org/peer-review/summary</a></p> <p>On February 7-9, 2018, a <a href="http://asapbio.org/peer-review/attendees">group of approximately 90</a> junior and senior scientists, publishers, editors, and funders convened at HHMI Headquarters in Chevy Chase, MD for a meeting on <a href="http://asapbio.org/peer-review">Transparency, Recognition, and Innovation in Peer Review in the Life Sciences</a>, organized by Wellcome, ASAPbio, and HHMI. The plenary sessions of the <a href="http://asapbio.org/peer-review/agenda">agenda</a> were webcast, and all videos can be viewed in the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir1T8pbuXUU&list=PLqwpOkZ9dxzKXpnpsh7Y6ubWgbYxGTZYX&index=1">webcast archive</a>. Slides from talks can be downloaded from the <a href="http://asapbio.org/peer-review/agenda">agenda</a>.</p> <p>In the weeks leading up to the meeting, two <a href="http://asapbio.org/peer-review/survey">surveys</a> captured attitudes toward our current peer review system: one more general survey for all stakeholders (originally appeared on this page, closed 2018-02-06 with 295 responses) and one on <a href="http://asapbio.org/peer-feedback">Peer Feedback</a> for authors and reviewers (appeared on the <a href="http://asapbio.org/peer-feedback">Peer Feedback</a> page, closed 2018-01-31 with 370 responses). Both surveys were anonymous and no personally identifiable information was collected. Selected results from both surveys can be found in the presentation below. All original data CC-0; images CC-BY.</p> <p> </p>
Data for study "'Conditional Acceptance' (additional experiments required): A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review"
<p>Dataset for study "‘Conditional Acceptance’ (additional experiments required): A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review", 2022 preprint by Tony Ross-Hellauer and Serge Horbach.</p> <p>Dataset includes excel file with 10 sheets showing systematic literature search (per PRISMA-SCR protocol) of academic databases (Web of Science, Scopus), snowballing and web-search to identify 52 studies on key aspects of Open Peer Review published from Jan 2017 until May 2022.</p> <p><strong>Study Abstract: </strong>Diverse efforts are underway to reform the journal peer review system. Combined with growing interest in Open Science practices, Open Peer Review (OPR) has become of central concern to the scholarly community. However, what Open Peer Review is understood to encompass and how effective some of its elements are in meeting the expectations of the peer review system, are uncertain. This scoping review updates previous efforts to summarise research on OPR to date. Following the PRISMA methodological framework, it addresses the question: “What evidence has been reported in the scientific literature from 2017 to date regarding uptake, attitudes, and efficacy of two key aspects of Open Peer Review (Open Identities and Open Reports)?” The review identifies, analyses and synthesises 52 studies matching inclusion criteria, finding that OPR is growing, but still far from common practice. Our findings indicate positive attitudes towards Open Reports and more sceptical approaches to Open Identities. Changes in reviewer behaviour seem limited. and no evidence for lower acceptance rates of review invitations or slower turnaround times is reported. Concerns about power dynamics and potential backfiring on critical reviews are in need of further experimentation. We conclude that elements of OPR seem to be gaining acceptance, but more experimentation is needed. Evidence still mainly consists of either survey data or case studies of individual or few journals, not allowing for generalisability across fields and journals, and revealing no studies which compare the quality of review under Open Identities or Open Reports versus other modes of peer review.</p>
Double-blind peer review affects reviewer ratings and editor decisions at an ecology journal
<p><span>There is substantial evidence that systemic biases influence the scholarly peer review process. Many scholars have advocated for double-blind peer review (also known as double-anonymous review) to reduce these biases. However, the effectiveness of double‐blind peer review in eliminating biases is uncertain because few randomized trials have manipulated blinding of author identities for journal submissions, and those that have are generally small or provide few insights on how it influences reviewer biases. </span></p> <p><span>In 2019, Functional Ecology began a large randomized trial, using real manuscript submissions, to evaluate the various consequences of shifting to double-blind peer review. Research papers submitted to the journal were randomly assigned to be reviewed with author identities blinded to reviewers (double‐blind review) or with authors identified to reviewers (single-blind review). In this paper, we explore the effect of blinding on the outcomes of peer review, examining reviewer ratings and editorial decisions, and ask whether author gender and/or location mediate the effects of review type. </span></p> <p><span>Double-blind review reduced the average success of manuscripts in peer review; papers reviewed with author identities blinded received on average lower ratings from reviewers and were less likely to be invited for revision or resubmission. However, the effect of review treatment varied with author location. </span></p> <p><span>Papers with first authors residing in countries with a higher human development index (HDI) and/or higher average English proficiency fared much better than those from countries with a lower HDI and lower English proficiency, but only when author identities were known to reviewers; outcomes were similar between demographic groups when author identities were not known to reviewers.</span></p> <p><span>Blinding author identities had no effect on gender differences in reviewer ratings or editor decisions. </span></p> <p><span>Our data provide strong evidence that authors from higher income and/or English-speaking countries receive significant benefits (a large positive bias) to being identified to reviewers during the peer review process, and that anonymizing author-identities (e.g., double-blind review) reduces this bias, making the peer review process more equitable. We suggest that offering optional blinding of author identities, as some journals allow, is unlikely to substantially reduce the biases that exist because authors from higher-income and English-speaking countries are the least likely to choose to be reviewed with their identity anonymized.</span></p>
Recognizing Preprint Peer Review Workshop Outputs
<p>These outputs were produced in connection with the Recognizing Preprint Peer Review workshop held at Janelia Research Campus & Online on December 1-2 by EMBO, HHMI, and ASAPbio.</p> <p>Original versions of some of these files, retaining original formatting and features, can be found on Google Docs:</p> <p><a href="https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W24jrTYPqoLX9eJrjBd5ujtTwuW9X-MqN7Ti_rTqlZA/edit?usp=sharing">Survey results</a></p> <p><a href="https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1h9xDkYXXyeETg1mgWy2-ZgEnYOdPrYxY8-F1ifkE5dc/edit?usp=sharing">Slides</a></p>
TG 100 focused peer reviewed article summary - June2022
<p>A collection of peer reviewed papers that use TG-100 tools. This reference matrix gives a quick way to browse relevant publications</p>
Librarians and information specialists as methodological peer-reviewers: a case-study of the International Journal of Health Governance. Datasets
<p>Objectives of this study were to analyze the impact of including librarians and information specialist as methodological peer-reviewers, because they can enhance methodologies in evidence synthesis. We sought to determine if and how librarians’ comments differed from subject peer-reviewers’; whether there were differences in the implementation of their recommendations; how this impacted editorial decision-making, and the perceived utility of librarian peer review by librarians and authors. We used a mixed method approach, conducting a qualitative analysis of reviewer reports, author replies and editors’ decisions of submissions to the International Journal of Health Governance. Our content analysis categorized 16 thematic areas so methodological and subject peer-reviewers’ comments, decisions and rejection rates could be compared. Categories were based on the standard areas covered in peer-review (e.g., title, originality, etc.) as well as additional in-depth categories relating to the methodology (e.g., search strategy, reporting guidelines, etc.). We developed and used criteria to judge reviewers’ perspectives and code their comments. Methodological peer-reviewers assessed 13 evidence synthesis manuscripts submitted between September 2020 and March 2023. 55 reviewer reports were collected: 25 from methodological peer-reviewers, 30 from subject peer-reviewers.</p>
Metagenomics tools employed in microbiome research, 2018-2023, per peer-reviewed publications
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Double-blind peer review affects reviewer ratings and editor decisions at an ecology journal
Open the record for dataset details and reuse information.
Signing up to Open Science: Open Peer Review and Aligning Core Values
<p><strong>Episode Summary:</strong></p> <p>In this episode we are talking to Dr Guillaume Filion from the Center for Genomic Regulation (CRG), Barcelona about his decision to put his name on all his peer reviews, why he feels this makes him more accountable, and what choices researchers need to make about whether their values align with those who they will work with. </p> <p><strong>Resources and Links:</strong></p> <ul> <li><a href="https://www.orion-openscience.eu/node/201">Factsheets</a></li> <li><a href="https://www.crg.eu/en/programmes-groups/filion-lab">Dr Guillaume Filion</a> <ul> <li><a href="https://twitter.com/thegrandlocus">Twitter Page</a></li> </ul> </li> <li><a href="http://blog.thegrandlocus.com/2018/09/on-open-peer-review">Original Blog Post by Dr Guillaume Filion</a></li> <li><a href="https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/learning/open-peer-review/#/id/5a17e150c2af651d1e3b1bce">FOSTER+ Information on Open Peer Review </a></li> </ul> <p><strong>Episode Quotes:</strong></p> <p>“I had the feeling I would do a better job as a reviewer, if I put my name on it, if I put my name on the line then it would force me not to do a bad job”</p>
Open Peer Review Journal Data
<p>This csv file contains a descriptive dataset of <strong>617</strong> scholarly journals that make use of a form of Open Peer Review (OPR) based on Open Reports and/or Open Reviewer Identities. The data file contains the following fields:</p> <p>Journal Title</p> <p>Year of First Identified OPR Occurrence (2001-2019)</p> <p>High Level Discipline of the Journal (Humanities, Medical and Health Sciences, Multidisciplinary, Natural Sciences, Social Sciences, Technology)</p> <p>Journal URL</p> <p>Journal Publisher</p> <p>Publisher Country</p> <p>Use of Open Reports (Decided by Author, Decided by Editor, Mandated by Journal, None)</p> <p>Use of Open Reviewer Identities (Decided by Reviewer, Mandated, None)</p> <p>Notes that provide additional information about the journal</p>
PEER REVIEWERS WHO REVIEWED PAKISTAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY AND MEDICINE VOL 1 NO 2
<p>Peer reviewers take time out of their busy schedule to do critical appraisal of a scientific journal. I am thankful to the following peer reviewers who have reviewed Pak J Surg Med Vol 1 No 2 and helped us in publishing quality work.<br> 1. Abrar Ullah Khan<br> 2. Aitzaz Bin Sultan Rai<br> 3. Arshia Kanwal<br> 4. Asim Andrabi<br> 5. Ejaz Hussain Wadd<br> 6. Ghazwan A. Lafta<br> 7. Hafiz Muhammad Imran<br> 8. Hafiz Muhammad Rizwan<br> 9. Hassan Abdullah Shakeel<br> 10. Kantenga DM Kabulo<br> 11. Kashif Aziz Ahmad<br> 12. Khalid M I Ashour<br> 13. Mirza Zain Baig<br> 14. Muhammad Awais Akram<br> 15. Muhammad Hamid Ch<br> 16. Muhammad K Hyat Syed<br> 17. Muhammad Khalid Zafar<br> 18. Muhammad Rafaih Iqbal<br> 19. Muhammad Zeshan<br> 20. Raheel Khan<br> 21. Shahid Hamid<br> 22. Sundus Ali<br> 23. Wajid Ali<br> 24. Zaka Ullah Khan<br> THANK YOU PEER REVIEWERS</p>
Data from: Gender diversity of editorial boards and gender differences in the peer review process at six journals of ecology and evolution.
<p>Despite substantial progress for women in science, women remain underrepresented in many aspects of the scholarly publication process. We examined how the gender diversity of editors and reviewers changed over time for six journals in ecology and evolution (2003-2015 for four journals, 2007-2015 or 2009-2015 for the other two), and how several aspects of the peer review process differed between female and male editors and reviewers. We found that, for five of the six journals, women were either absent or very poorly represented as handling editors at the beginning of our dataset. The representation of women among handling editors increased gradually and consistently, with women making up 29% of the handling editors (averaged across journals) in 2015, similar to the representation of women as last authors on ecology papers (23% in 2015) but lower than the proportion of women among all authors (31%) and among members of the societies that own the journals (37-40%). The proportion of women among reviewers has also gradually but consistently increased over time, reaching 27% by 2015. Female editors invited more female reviewers than did male editors, and this difference increased with age of the editor. Men and women who were invited to review did not differ in whether they responded to the review invitation, but, of those that responded, women were slightly more likely to agree to review. In contrast, women were less likely than men to accept invitations to serve on journal editorial boards. Our analyses indicate that there has been progress in the representation of women as reviewers and editors in ecology and evolutionary biology, but women are still underrepresented among the gatekeepers of scholarly publishing relative to their representation among researchers.</p>
ScienceDex guides
Understand access before you commit
These curated guides explain access requirements, typical timelines, costs, and reuse considerations for widely used research datasets.
Allen Brain Atlas
Allen Brain Atlas is an Allen Institute collection of brain map atlases, datasets, APIs, and analysis tools covering mouse, human, and non-human primate brain resources.
Annotated Behaviour and Observability Dataset (ABODe)
ABODe is a University of Edinburgh DataShare dataset for behavior classification in group-housed mice using home-cage video, identities, bounding boxes, ground-plate positions, and annotator labels.
DANDI Archive for NWB datasets
DANDI is a BRAIN Initiative archive for publishing and sharing neurophysiology data, including electrophysiology, optophysiology, and behavioral data packaged as NWB and related standards.
International Brain Laboratory public data
The International Brain Laboratory public data releases expose standardized mouse decision-making experiments, including Neuropixels recordings, widefield calcium imaging, behavior, and session metadata accessed through the ONE API.
OpenNeuro
OpenNeuro is a free, open platform for sharing neuroimaging datasets, with public search, dataset pages, and download paths for web, S3, DataLad, and the OpenNeuro CLI.